Loading...
PC-11-01-11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 1 NOVEMBER 2011 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Arnst, Davis, Garelick (arrived at 7:17 P.M.), Hasek (arrived at 7:01 P.M.) and Hutchins; Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Woodruff Absent: Councilmember Charbonnet APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hutchins moved, Arnst seconded, approving the agenda for November 1, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 18, 2011 Hutchins moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2011, amended in Item 1, Page 5, Paragraph 5, Sentence 12, change “buildings that are over 1200 square feet in size” to “buildings that are over 150 square feet in size”. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Don and Kiki Gloude Location: 4675 Fatima Place Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items acted upon this evening would be placed on a November 28, 2011, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen explained Don and Kiki Gloude own the property located at 4675 Fatima Place. They have begun a substantial expansion and remodeling of their existing home, including a new garage. They propose building a new entry and covered porch on the front of the house as part of the project. The entry is an allowable encroachment in residential districts, but the porch is specifically precluded. They propose building the covered porch 4.5 feet into the front yard setback. Therefore, they have requested a front yard setback variance. The property is located in the R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. In addition to their home there is an attached garage, swimming pool and two small accessory buildings on the property. In this district the minimum allowable lot size is 10,000 square feet. Their lot contains 26,866 square feet of area with the current hardcover at 16.4 percent. The proposed additions will increase the amount of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 2 of 15 hardcover to 20.8 percent. Currently the house is situated 31.7 feet back from the street right-of-way. The new garage and addition will be built out to the 30-foot required setback; the smallest front setback of all of the four single-family residential districts. The enclosed entry extends 4.5 feet into the front setback area which is allowed under the City’s zoning regulations. The covered porch to the left of the entry also extends 4.5 feet into the front setback area and that is specifically prohibited. The applicants propose having a 3-foot by 3-foot concrete stoop coming off of the entry way. When Staff first discussed this project with the applicants Staff told them that is not allowed. Therefore, the applicants thought they needed to include the stoop in their variance request. Upon further investigation Staff determined the stoop is allowable as long as it is not covered. The stoop is no longer part of the variance request. Nielsen displayed illustrations of the site location map and the proposed floor plan. He noted this is the first variance request being considered under the new “practical difficulties” regulations versus the old “hardship” regulations. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained the request has to conform to all of the criteria for a variance. He reviewed how the applicants’ request conforms to the criteria. Although it is not unreasonable to want a covered porch, the question at hand is if it should be allowed to encroach into what is already a minimal front yard setback. The Ordinance requires porches comply with the setback requirement. Its encroachment into the setback could be considered inconsistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. Practical difficulties include three factors: reasonableness; circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and, the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. All three criteria must be met. Reasonableness was just discussed. The applicants’ circumstances are not unique to the property. Many homes in the neighborhood have a similar type of entry condition as the applicants, but they do comply with the setback requirement. While the applicants may not have built the original house, the house was built very near the minimal setback and therefore it does not allow for additions to the front of the building. The applicants have inherited what the previous owner has done. Nielsen reviewed the four reasons the applicants have given for granting the variance. They are: 1) safety; 2) handicap access; 3) use of land; and 4) aesthetics/property value. With regard to safety, the applicants are allowed an eave overhang of 3.7 feet. This is nearly double what many of the houses in the neighborhood have. There are other ways of directing drainage away from the stoop. The applicants want a shed-type roof off of the new entry feature. In other instances people have gone with an “eyebrow” design where the entry is covered by a gable facing the street, directing drainage away from the doorway. The ability of the applicants to have the stoop should resolve any handicap access issues. Being able to have the front stoop should resolve any use of land issue. Aesthetics and property value are not criterion for granting variances under the previous hardship standard or in the practical difficulties test. They are simply too subjective to use as reasons. The City has historically placed considerable value on the open space afforded by reasonable setback areas. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case Staff believes the applicants’ request does not satisfy the criteria for granting a variance under the “practical difficulties” test. Staff believes a text amendment to the Zoning Code would be a more appropriate way to address the request. It would be difficult to say the same arguments could not be made for any number of homes in the neighborhood. Nielsen then stated Staff recommends not approving the variance request. Nielsen noted the applicants are present this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 3 of 15 In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained the four-foot wide step next to the stoop is allowed. In response to another question, Nielsen stated it’s the roof that is the issue. Mr. Gloude clarified the notch in the eyebrow roof is the only thing that is being talked about for a variance. He noted the house was built about 50 years ago by other people that owned the property. He explained the current house is a flat faced house with about 8 inches of eave. During the approximate 10 years he and his wife have owned the property they have had problems with ice forming on the front stoop and steps because there is nothing to cover them. Their proposed design should address that issue. The first design they considered did have a gable entry going toward the street. They were told they couldn’t have that because it encroached too much into the setback. They were also told they had to do a side entry door. When they open the door to their house the door almost hits the stairs going to the upstairs. There is no internal room to recess an entry. Mr. Gloude stated that he and his wife have friends that are wheelchair bound. Therefore, they are trying to make their home more handicapped accessible for those friends. He then stated they believe the proposed design for the roofline and covered sidewalk improve the aesthetic appearance of the house and it naturally guides you to the front door. It would enhance the value of the property. Mr. Gloude stated he and his wife worked the design a number of different ways. The proposed design is the one that fits best within the constraints they have, but they do need a variance for the one section of the roof. He noted they have spoken with their neighbors and the neighbors are very supportive. Commissioner Davis asked how people in wheelchairs will be able to get up the step that is depicted on the floor plan. Mr. Gloude explained they had spoken to people about putting in a slopped sidewalk and were told that would be more unsafe than a step. Visitors would still have to get up the step but they wouldn’t have to maneuver on the small stoop. Their proposed design addresses access and safety by mitigating the buildup of ice and snow near the entry to the house. Commissioner Hasek asked Mr. Gloude if they had a handicapped accessible bathroom for their visitors. Mr. Gloude responded the proposed remodeling includes adding a handicapped accessible bathroom. Chair Geng asked if there has been consideration given to gutters. Mr. Gloude explained there are gutters on the house today, but that hasn’t stopped the buildup of ice dams. There will be gutters on the new design. Mr. Gloude noted the eyebrow design proposed in the roof will be metal. Having a gutter in the middle of that portion of the roof would not have been aesthetically appealing. Commissioner Arnst commented having a roof over the stoop will help mitigate the ice and snow problem. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Commissioner Hasek asked if the proposed stone on the front of the house will be located in the setback. Director Nielsen responded that is an allowable encroachment. Mr. Gloude stated the brick that had been on the house has been removed and the proposed stone is just replacing that. Hasek stated it appears to him that the Gloude house is located closer to Fatima Place than the other houses in the neighborhood, but there is another house that is almost as close. He expressed concern about creating a variance precedent for what seems to him to be aesthetic reasons thereby requiring the City to grant similar variances in the future. He commented that he is pleased the applicants propose other improvements to accommodate those with physical challenges. He stated what he hears is that the applicants want to do what they propose, not that they need to do it. He commented there are times when gutters have to be used. He asked if a variance would be required if the proposed roof didn’t have posts under it to which Director Nielsen responded it would because it is more than two feet deep. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 4 of 15 Commissioner Hutchins asked Mr. Gloude what the current status of the exterior construction is and what the estimated time to complete it is. Mr. Gloude stated the back of the home has builtright and exposed wall in the back and the builders are continuing to build according to plan. The brick and siding has been removed from the front portion of the house. Most of the house has sheathing on the first floor, but not on the front of the garage. Mr. Gloude stated the builder had indicated at the start of the project that it would take seven months but it may take longer because of some engineering things that had to be worked out for two beams. He thought the estimate completion date is at least six months out. Hutchins stated he had some concerns about the proposed variance request. He noted he had not had time to visit the site because he had been out of town most of the time between when he received the supporting material for this request and now. He stated he did not believe he had enough information to make an informed decision on this variance request this evening. He questioned if the construction timetable would permit continuing this item to the next meeting. Director Nielsen noted the City would have to give notice that it will not be able to satisfy the 60-day rule for acting on this request. The notice can extend the time to 120 days. Commissioner Arnst and Commissioner Garelick expressed their support for continuing this item to the next meeting. Commissioner Hasek expressed his disappointment with doing that. Director Nielsen stated if this request is continued it could still be placed on the November 28, 2011, City Council meeting agenda for consideration. Therefore, it would not have to be noticed. Commissioner Hutchins noted that independent of the construction schedule he would have made the same recommendation. Davis moved, Garelick seconded, continuing consideration of the front yard variance request from Don and Kiki Gloude, 4675 Fatima Place, to the November 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 6/0. In response to a question from Commissioner Arnst, Director Nielsen explained either the City or an individual can initiate a request for an amendment to the City’s Zoning Code. Chair Geng stated he was intrigued by Director Nielsen’s comments that this request could be handled by an amendment to the ordinance. He asked if the amendment would be for the R-1D/S District only or would it be City wide. He suggested before considering an amendment Staff find out how many properties in the neighborhood have a similar problem. He noted the residences existed prior to the setback requirements being added to the Zoning Ordinance. He asked if the problem is unique to that District. Nielsen stated the problem exists in that District because it has some of the older homes. The lots tend not to comply with the requirements set up in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Davis stated there has been discussion about retrofitting homes for the older population. People are trying to make their homes safe for people with mobility problems. Chair Geng stated from his vantage point variances should be granted sparingly. Therefore, it may be more appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to adjust the front yard setback requirement to accommodate neighborhoods with older houses that were built near or in the setback so property owners don’t have to apply for a variance. Commissioner Hasek stated if it were amended the amendment would have to specifically identify what could be built closer to the street. He noted that he doesn’t want to see structures be built closer to the street than they have to. He asked if an amendment discussion should preclude the continued discussion about this variance request. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 5 of 15 Director Nielsen stated there are two ways to handle this. One is to deny the variance and then amend the ordinance. He explained that in the past variances have been granted in some cases when there was an assumption more requests of similar nature were going to be asked for and a note was made that when the similar requests are made the City should consider an amendment. He stated if this variance request were to be granted because it seems reasonable then it makes sense to address an amendment immediately. Director Nielsen reiterated the variance request is for the roof over the porch that encroaches into the setback area and that is not allowable in the ordinance. Chair Geng clarified he doesn’t think the Planning Commission should ever encourage someone to build in the setback area. In this neighborhood there are a number of houses that are close to the street. He stated he thought the property next to the applicants on the south side is even closer to the street than the applicants. The problem in this neighborhood is not unique. He then stated he thought it would be wise to limit a front yard setback amendment to the R-1D District and to make it clear that it would not be for a substantial addition into a setback area. Commissioner Hasek suggested the Commissioners spend some time in that neighborhood and to get a good understanding of what the limits of the R-1D District are so they fully understand what needs to be addressed. Director Nielsen suggested looking at all of the R-1D Districts on the zoning map. Nielsen stated the amendment would apply to those neighborhoods as well. Chair Geng suggested the discussion of such an amendment be added to the Planning Commission’s 2012 work program. Commissioner Hasek stated if a second Planning Commission meeting was to be scheduled for December th he asked when it would be. Director Nielsen responded the meeting would be on December 20. Council Liaison Woodruff noted the City Council traditionally only schedules one regular meeting in December. Administrator Heck agreed with putting the amendment discussion on the 2012 work program. The schedule for the remaining two 2011 Planning Commission meetings are already full and items have already been pushed into 2012. Chair Geng stated he is not convinced the ordinance needs to be changed. He supports discussing the possibility of an amendment in 2012 to ensure the Commission has sufficient time to thoroughly assess the need. Ms. Gloude stated they were originally told there were two items that needed a variance with one of them being the concrete stoop. When they received a copy of the material in the meeting packet on October 29, 2011, they learned the stoop was really never an issue. She explained the cutback in the eyebrow roof leaves lots of snow on the porch. Mr. Gloude stated from his perspective the City has already established a precedent with the front entry allowance. That is to say age of home relative to the current ordinance and limited size. The front entry is a 4-foot by 6-foot allowance in the setback for homes of a certain age. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – DYNAMIC SIGNS Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M., again noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. Items acted upon this evening would be placed on a November 28, 2011, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 6 of 15 Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a revised proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code Chapter 1201.03 Subd. 11 addressing dynamic signs. He noted the Planning Commission has been working on this for several months. There has been consensus that keeping up with technology is a good thing to do, but it does need to be controlled and regulated. Nielsen highlighted the changes the Commission discussed during its October 4, 2011, meeting. The extensive Findings section was replaced with a smaller Purpose section. A provision was added that prohibits a dynamic display sign from being located closer than 20 feet from a side lot line. A provision was added stating “Any portion of a dynamic display sign that consists solely of an alpha-numeric message shall not be counted in the allowable area for the sign, provided the alpha-numeric message remains static for no less than four hours at a time.” A provision was added for residential zoning districts, including the R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning district stating “Alpha-numeric institutional signs shall be limited to 20-square feet in area and shall be timed to remain static for no less than 90 minutes at a time.” He noted those provisions are only for conditional uses in those districts. There were also a few minor changes made. Nielsen noted that earlier in the day the City received a request from Mike Cronin, a representative for Holiday Stationstores (Holiday) who has been part of the previous dynamic display sign discussions, asking for the opportunity to review changes Holiday would like to have made to the Zoning Code text amendment. Mr. Cronin, 8809 West Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, and representing Holiday Stationstores, stated he thought the proposed ordinance is cautious and safe. He then stated Holiday is requesting three changes be made to the ordinance. He noted he thinks the changes could be made without compromising what the City’s intents are with regard to dynamic display signs. From Holiday’s perspective the changes would make the use of the signs much more effective. Mr. Cronin explained the first requested change relates to night-time operation. He distributed some photographs and sections of the ordinance to help illustrate his points. He noted the ordinance states “… any dynamic display sign located within 500 feet of single- and two-family residential homes must be programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. ...”. One photo displays how far back the 500-foot radius reaches from the sign at a Holiday location in the City. In those instances when the face of the dynamic sign is shielded from single and two family homes by the orientation of the sign face, intervening structures or other buffers, Holiday is asking that its representatives be given an opportunity to request to City staff to wave the 10:00 P.M. restriction. A second photo showed the signs are pointed toward the road, not residential property. A third photo showed you can’t see any houses. A fourth photo showed there were only two houses from which the signs could be seen. He commented the City has done a good job of trying to protect residential properties from commercial properties. Mr. Cronin then explained the second requested change relates to the size of a sign. He distributed information supporting the reason for this request. The ordinance states “Dynamic display signs may occupy no more than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area.”. Holiday is requesting that be increased to 45 percent but no more than 32 square feet of the actual copy and graphic area. That would allow Holiday to have a 32 square-foot sign. What Holiday is talking about is 12 square feet of sign area. He is not sure the 12 square feet makes much difference to the City, but it does make a big difference to Holiday with regard to letter height. It also impacts the geometry of the sign and that is a big issue for Holiday. Holiday would like to maintain its 1-tall by 2-wide standard for the Holiday station in Shorewood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Cronin went on to explain the third request relates to message duration. He distributed information supporting the reason for this request. The ordinance states “A dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion thereof, may not change more often than once every 10 minutes ... A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 10 minutes before changing to a different display, but the time, date, or temperature information itself may change no more often than once every 60 seconds.” Holiday is asking that the image be able to change not more than once every 10 seconds and deleting the entire second sentence. If not every 10 seconds, then at least every 20 or 30 seconds. A person wouldn’t see the sign change if it changed that frequently.He noted some other cities allow signs to change every 10 – 12 seconds and it doesn’t cause any safety issues. Mr. Cronin stated there is technology for ambient light sensors. He recommended that be made a requirement in the ordinance so a sign can’t go from 500 nits (candelas per square meter) to 5000 nits at the crack of dawn or so that it is not as bright on a grey day. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the changes Holiday has proposed. Commissioner Garelick expressed concern that there wouldn’t be any standardization if the City were to grant exceptions to the 10:00 P.M. – 6:00 A.M. restriction. That would make the ordinance too subjective. He thought making the change would make it too easy for people to ask for an exception. Commissioner Hasek expressed his agreement with that concern. Mr. Cronin stated that is not Holiday’s intent and explained that specific request applies only to the provision that the image be static between those hours. That would be the only provision in the ordinance where an exception could be granted. If the provision doesn’t add any protection because of things such as the orientation of the sign then the provision doesn’t need to be applied. Chair Geng asked if there is anything that would prevent an applicant like Holiday from applying for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) or a variance. Director Nielsen explained the City doesn’t have a conditional use for that. Nielsen noted most cities do not handle dynamic display signs by C.U.P. Geng clarified that he was asking if the City adopts a standard and an organization or person wants something different can they apply for a C.U.P. Nielsen stated not unless the ordinance is changed to have criteria for that. Visibility from houses could be a criterion, but the criteria would have to be pre-established. Nielsen stated if there is any leaning toward an exception like that, that is how he would suggest handling it. He noted he is not convinced an exception is in order. Geng noted he is not convinced one is needed either. Commissioner Garelick asked how the draft ordinance compares to other surrounding cities’ ordinances. Mr. Chronic stated he thought it was similar to other ordinances, yet the City’s ordinance deals with brightness more than many others. Director Nielsen explained after reviewing other ordinances he has concluded there is a wide range of how dynamic display signs are handled. Staff considered the City’s character when drafting the ordinance. The City is a residential community. The commercial areas in the City in general support residential uses. The Waterford Shopping Center has a condition where the lights have to be dimmed somewhat at 11:00 P.M. because of the neighborhood. Mr. Cronin stated he thought the Waterford Shopping Center and the CUB Foods light dimming standards are both 11:00 P.M. He asked if the Planning Commission would consider changing the static display restriction to 11:00 P.M. That would at least tie the restriction to some standard. Director Nielsen clarified CUB doesn’t have a restriction at all to lower its lights. Nielsen stated CUB does have a restriction on the site lighting and he will check out what restrictions there are. Mr. Cronin stated changing it to 11:00 P.M. would be helpful to the Holiday station. Commissioner Arnst stated she would support having consistent light dimming standards. Chair Geng and Commissioner Hasek expressed their support for having consistent standards. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 8 of 15 Commissioner Hutchins noted that sections 1 – 9 in Subd. 11 of the ordinance have titles. He suggested sections 10 – 11 be given titles also. He stated section 11 addresses two issues. One point is dynamic display signs cannot be located closer than 100 feet from a residential zoning district. The second is any dynamic display sign located within 500 feet of single- and two-family residential homes must be programmed to freeze the image between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. He stated Mr. Cronin’s proposed change to Section 11 contains language saying “and intervening structures and other buffers”. Those things can change over time and that language can create too much opportunity for complaints. He shared other’s concerns that leaving it up to Staff to grant exceptions is not the way to go. Commissioner Hasek asked if the church across the street from the Holiday station is located in a residential zoning district, to which Director Nielsen responded yes. Nielsen noted that zoning district is more than 100 feet away from the Holiday station; therefore, it doesn’t impact Holiday. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:22 P.M. Commissioner Hutchins stated the word “be” should be inserted between the words “must instantaneous” in section 4. He thanked Mr. Cronin for his efforts and for his working with the Planning Commission on this over the last few months. It made the Commission’s job easier. He stated this amendment needs to apply to the entire City and all applications. He cautioned against focusing it on Holiday. In response to a question from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen explained in the provision that “a dynamic display sign’s image, or any portion thereof, may not change more often than once every 10 minutes, except …” the 10 minute restriction is in the range of what other cities’ ordinances have. Hasek asked if there is any way to control different signs within the same vicinity from changing within the same period thereby causing a blinking effect. Nielsen thought that would be difficult to do. Commissioner Arnst recapped what she understood the outcome of this discussion to be. Some minor changes were proposed by Commissioner Hutchins. There was agreement to change the nighttime static display restriction start time to be consistent with the start time for the light dimming standards for the Waterford Shopping Center and for CUB Foods. The remainder of the ordinance will remain as is. She asked what else needs to be addressed. Director Nielsen stated Holiday has requested a change to the provision that “Dynamic display signs may occupy no more than 25% percent of the actual copy and graphic area.” to increase it to 45 percent of the sign but not more than 32 square feet. He stated a picture submitted this evening by Mr. Cronin confirms for him that it should remain 25 percent because the majority of the sign was covered with advertising. The primary reason for the sign is for identification not advertising. He noted that percentage varies a lot in the ordinances reviewed. Commissioner Hasek stated the 25 percent or some specific size is appropriate. Hasek moved, Arnst seconded, recommending approval of the Zoning Code text amendment for Dynamic Display Signs subject to the following changes to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11. b(2)(e): in (4) insert the word “be” between the words “must instantaneous”; in (10) and (11) add a title; and in (11) change the start time for the static display restriction to be consistent with the light dimming standards for the shopping centers in the City. Motion passed 6/0. Commissioner Hasek also thanked Mr. Cronin for all of his hard work on this. Mr. Cronin reiterated his recommendation for light sensors to be made a requirement in the ordinance so a sign can’t go from 500 nits (candelas per square meter) to 5000 nits at the crack of dawn or so that it is CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 9 of 15 not as bright on a grey day. Commissioner Hasek suggested Council Liaison Woodruff convey that to Council. Woodruff stated Council prefers to receive a complete recommendation from the Planning Commission, although Staff could bring this forward as something Staff thinks is reasonable to consider. Woodruff suggested Staff do that. There was consensus for Staff to bring Mr. Cronin’s recommendation forward. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 8:37 P.M. 3. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – ANIMAL REGULATIONS (Except Dogs) Director Nielsen noted the Planning Commission had been provided with a copy of third draft of Ordinance Chapter 704 Farm and Other Animals. This draft includes the changes discussed by the Planning Commission during its October 18, 2011, meeting. It does not address dogs because they are addressed in Chapter 701 of the City Code. th He highlighted the changes made during the October 18 meeting. They include the following. A definition for Nuisance Animal and it somewhat ties into the Nuisance Chapter of the City  Code. In the definition of wild animal the statement “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be  vaccinated against rabies, except domestic animals such as cows” was changed to “Animals that can transmit rabies and cannot be vaccinated against rabies”. “All animals - maintenance standards” was changed to “Maintenance standards”.  In 704.06 Subd. 2 the statement “Before commencing an action to enforce compliance with these  standards, enforcement personnel must give an owner notice of a violation and a reasonable opportunity to comply.” was replaced with “An action to enforce the provisions of this chapter shall follow the procedures set forth in Chapter 104 of this Code.”. In 704.06 Subd., 2(d) was added and it states “All feed kept for animals shall be stored in animal-  proof, galvanized containers.” In 704.06 Subd. 3 was changed to read “Veterinary clinics with indoor overnight care and indoor  kennels. In addition to the standards established under Subd. 1. above, veterinary clinics with indoor care and indoor kennels, where allowed by zoning, must comply with Minnesota Rules Chapter 9100, as may be amended.” All items under 704.06 Subd. 3 were deleted.   Under 704.09 Subd. 2(a) “An urban farm animal must not be kept or maintained on the front yard An urban farm animal may of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code.” was changed to “ only be kept in the buildable area of the rear yard of the property, as defined by the Zoning Code.” Item 704.09 Subd. 2(i) Permit issuance; fees was added along with three items underneath it. Nielsen noted permit fees have not been discussed yet. He stated he will come up with a fee schedule. Commissioner Arnst stated she wanted to be certain that a person will place their beehives closer to their house than their neighbor’s house. She expressed concern that the ordinance language may not ensure that. Director Nielsen noted the language before the Commission states the location section must be rewritten to address location, size standards and screening. Nielsen stated he did not think there should be separate standards for chickens and beehives. Commissioner Davis stated there is a need for separate standards. Arnst noted there is a resident who puts their beehives in close proximity to someone’s swimming pool. Nielsen stated that is the special requirement that is yet to be defined. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 10 of 15 Chair Geng questioned if roosters should be added to the definition of rural farm animals. They are included Section 704.09 Subd. 2(d) and that seems out of place. Director Nielsen stated the ordinance should be very clear that roosters are not allowed. Geng asked if they should therefore be listed in the definition of rural farm animals. Commissioner Hasek stated they are a form of a chicken. Geng stated Commissioner Charbonnet had sent him an email questioning if under nuisance animal should be amended to say “enjoyment of their property or public property”. Nielsen stated that would be appropriate. Geng stated 704.06 Subd. 1(c) references barn yet there is no definition for barn. He asked if barn needs to be defined. Commissioner Arnst suggested changing barn to shelter. Geng questioned if Section 704.08 Forfeiture of Animal Rights should be changed to Forfeiture of Animal Ownership Rights. Nielsen stated he thought that would be a good change. He stated Section 704.09 Subd. 2(i)(2) states “…or publicly owned real estate within 150 feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is being requested or, in the alternative, proof that the applicant’s property lines are 150 feet or more from any structure”. He asked if the word “residential” should be inserted in between “any structure”. Commissioner Hasek stated a swimming pool wouldn’t be classified as a residential structure. Geng asked if it should be limited to exclude out buildings. Council Liaison Woodruff clarified this section is about getting written approval from other property owners; it’s not about the location of anything. Geng stated he is okay with how that is written. Commissioner Arnst suggested combining item a and item b under the definition of wild animal. She also suggested combining item e and item g. Chair Geng suggested if 704.05 Impounding of Animals 1(a) and 1(b) should be reversed. There was consensus to put people first. In response to a comment from Council Liaison Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained that the word city is capitalized when it refers to government and it is not when it refers to the geographical area. Woodruff stated Section 704.07 Subd. 3(i) states “If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing.” He suggested it be changed to saying if a wild mammal bites a person because only mammals can get and transmit rabies. Woodruff then stated in Section 704.09 Subd. 2(a) reference to confinement, he asked if bees should be excluded because they can’t be confined. Chair Geng suggested it state the “urban farm animal shelter may only be kept”. Woodruff agreed with that change. Commissioner Hasek expressed concern that the animal could be fenced in and run in the front yard. Nielsen stated he will add something to specifically address bees. Commissioner Davis stated Section 704.07 Subd. 3(i) states “If a wild animal bites a person, the animal must be forfeited immediately to authorized City personnel for rabies testing.” She questioned why that is there because wild animals are prohibited. Commissioner Arnst asked why wild animals were defined. Director Nielsen explained because the City regulates them. Director Nielsen stated he will update the ordinance to include the changes just discussed. He then stated th he wants to put the next draft on the December 6 meeting agenda because he will not be in the office next week. 4. CITY CODE DISCUSSION – MASSAGE THERAPIST LICENSE Director Nielsen noted he has not sent out a draft amendment of the Therapeutic Massage Licensing Ordinance. The Planning Commission discussed the topic of massage therapist licensing during its October 18, 2011, meeting. Staff suggests the Commission do the same thing as it did with dog licensing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 11 of 15 That is, to forward a recommendation to Council and if it agrees Council can direct Staff to draft an actual amendment. Nielsen reviewed the licensing options the Commission discussed. Under the current Code the City licenses the individual therapist; not the business. He stated it’s his recollection there was consensus among the Commissioners that the business should be licensed instead. The owner of the business would be responsible for the background checks and verifying the qualifications. He asked if the same fee should be charged independent of the number of therapists. If so, an individual who provides massage services out of their home would pay the same license fee as a business owner who has, for example, 13 massage therapy beds. He suggested there be a base license fee for a business plus so much per therapist. That would let the City know how many therapists there are. There is also the option of licensing the business and the individual therapist. The main fee would be on the business and there would be a minimal fee for each therapist. Commissioner Arnst asked if a dentist has to be licensed by the City to operate in the City. Director Nielsen responded no, noting a dentist is licensed by the State. Nielsen also noted individual massage therapists are not licensed by the State. Commissioner Garelick asked if a barber is licensed by the State. Nielsen responded yes, noting he thought individual barbers have to have their own state license. Chair Geng stated he did not think any massage therapist is licensed by the State. Director Nielsen explained this came about because a business owner who has quite a few therapists providing services at his location expressed concern to the City about what it costs the therapists to get a license. The fee charged for licensing could possibly be too high. From his vantage point, a business license plus a small individual therapist license fee makes some sense. Chair Geng stated he doesn’t understand why it makes sense. The purpose of licensing the business is to put the onus on the business owner to make sure the people working for them are properly qualified. The City would no longer be responsible for that. He asked what the rationale would be for charging each therapist a fee when the business would already have paid a fee. The City wouldn’t be responsible for verifying the therapist’s qualifications. Director Nielsen stated that implies the City would never verify that the business is being responsible for having qualified therapists. Commissioner Arnst stated she thought that would be over kill. Licensing the business only is more than sufficient. She then stated the City Building Official would know how many massage rooms there are in the office when he conducts an inspection. She noted she does not personally support over regulating this because someone at sometime did something inappropriate. th Administrator Heck reiterated comments he made during the October 18 meeting. He suggested looking at massage therapist licensing from the same perspective of alcohol and tobacco licensing. For liquor sales and tobacco sales the license is for the business and if one of the business’ employees violates the ordinance by selling to a minor the proprietor is cited for the violation and the individual who made the sale is also cited. The only reason for licensing the individual therapist is if the therapist is doing something the proprietor doesn’t know about then the City could go after the therapist. But, the City would likely go after the proprietor because they should have known what the therapists are doing. He expressed his support for putting the onus on the business owner. He stated he is not sure inspecting a business that employs, in some way, multiple therapists is any different than a tobacco or liquor sale business that employs multiple people. He explained that a therapy business with for example 10 beds may have more than 10 therapists working for the business. Keeping track of them all would be onerous CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 12 of 15 for the City. He expressed he favors licensing the business/proprietor and making them responsible for everything. In response to a comment from Commissioner Hasek, Director Nielsen stated by licensing the individual therapist in addition to the business there is a little more enforcement control. Nielsen questioned if it would be prudent to shut an entire business down when one therapist does something wrong. Nielsen stated if the therapist does something wrong they don’t get more than one chance. A suspension of a license would be quite painful. Commissioner Hasek stated he supports licensing the business/proprietor and making them responsible. Council Liaison Woodruff stated there are a civil sanction and a criminal sanction. If there were to be an issue there in all likelihood there would both be a civil violation and a criminal violation. The City has ways to sanction for criminal activity under State Statute. The City doesn’t have a way to control if a business exists or not if the City doesn’t license the business. He commented if a business gets a tobacco license it is obligated to adhere to state law and on a civil level it’s obligated to operate per the City Code. A tobacco business can have any number of people selling tobacco provided they meet the state requirements. If tobacco is sold to minors it will result in a criminal violation, and the City prosecutor can decide to prosecute both the individual who made the sale and the business/proprietor. He supports licensing the business and if the City wants to make sure the therapists have the appropriate credentials then the City should require the business owner/proprietor to make sure they have the proper credentials. Chair Geng asked what the proper credentials would be. Director Nielsen explained the City Code already addresses that and the business owner/proprietor would have to prove the individual therapist has the required credentials. Geng stated he is troubled by having a solo practitioner pay the same business fee as a business with multiple therapists. Commissioner Arnst asked what the business license fee would be. Director Nielsen stated that has not been decided but he thought it could be what the therapist license fee today is. Administrator Heck explained today there are a $50 license fee to practice and a $100 one-time investigative fee. If the business were to be licensed similar to tobacco and alcohol licensing then the City would have a background check conducted on the business owner/proprietor. Heck noted that in most instances when a massage therapy business has gone awry it’s because the owner/proprietor was acting inappropriately. Director Nielsen stated it’s his understanding that the Planning Commission wants to license the business owner/proprietor only. Commissioner Arnst recommended giving consideration to charging a smaller license fee for a sole practitioner. Chair Geng agreed with that. Nielsen asked what the rationale for doing that is. Geng asked why the City would charge the same fee for a one-person massage therapy business as it does for a business that has a number of therapists. Commissioner Arnst stated the $50 license fee doesn’t bother her but the $100 investigative fee does. Administrator Heck asked if the Planning Commission wants to have the opportunity to review the text amendment to the Therapeutic Massage Licensing Ordinance before it is presented to Council for consideration. The Commission indicated it wants that opportunity. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 13 of 15 5. SMITHTOWN CROSSING Director Nielsen noted during its November 15, 2011, meeting the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. He stated th as of the Commission’s October 18 meeting the City had only received one comment sheet from a resident who attended the open house on the Study. Since that date the City has received a few more. The meeting packet contains copies of the returned comment sheets for the Commissions review. He asked if the Planning Commission wants to hold the hearing on the amendment as the Study stands today or does it want to discuss whether or not the Study should be revised to incorporate any of the comments received. Chair Geng suggested hold the hearing based on the current version of the Study. He recommended reinforcing the fact that there is no redevelopment plan for that area. He stated the people that attended the open house didn’t seem to understand that there is no redevelopment plan or proposal, and that the City is not driving anything. Commissioner Hasek stated the Study primarily conveys the City prefers the area be redeveloped with a common vision; not piecemeal. He indicated it’s time to bring the Study project to conclusion. Commissioner Hutchins stated one of the individuals that sent in comments suggested creating some form of special buffering between the redevelopment area and the residential area to the west, and possibly a noise barrier as well. The intent would be to make sure the redevelopment doesn’t negatively impact the residential property values. He expressed he thought it is a fair thing to consider. When the area is redevelopment there needs to be consideration given to how it impacts the surrounding area. Chair Geng stated that’s consistent with what the Planning Commissioners heard at the open house. Commissioner Hasek stated it’s also consistent with what the Commission has talked about over the last two years. Commissioner Hasek stated all too frequently people try to put dimensions and specific design on concept plans. That’s not what concept plans are intended to be. He commented that twin homes could be a way to transition from commercial to residential. Director Nielsen stated the Study has tried to emphasize the transition space, noting there is a difference between transition and buffer. If it would be the right land use the buffer part can be kept to a minimum. Depending on the redevelopment there may be a desire for a deeper, more extensive buffer. Administrator Heck asked if the Study report could be summarized into a statement of guiding principles or something of that nature. It would be a list of ten or so bullet points that the Council and the Planning Commission would prefer to come about when the area is redeveloped. For example, landscaping, building materials and things of that nature. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought that is what the Commission has done. Chair Geng stated people appear to be thinking the City is pushing some type of concrete development. Commissioner Arnst stated after living in the City for over 30 years that’s the way some residents tend to think. Arnst encouraged Geng not to be overly concerned about that. Director Nielsen stated the vision could be reformatted into bullets and renamed to guiding principles. Commissioner Arnst expressed her support for doing that. Chair Geng stated then it wouldn’t look like a plan that the City is trying to sell. Geng then stated he has heard residents ask why they are just hearing about the Study now. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 14 of 15 Director Nielsen stated people have a tendency to focus on what they don’t want to see as part of a redevelopment effort such as density and height. Commissioner Arnst stated the information Administrator Heck sent to the Planning Commission regarding a development opportunity in the City of Plymouth where there was an attempt to educate residents about what may occur was great. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought a great deal of residents’ discussions during the open house was very positive. He then stated four of the roughly forty people that came to the open house submitted written comments and some of the comments are not as supportive. The four did agree they don’t want the area to be developed piecemeal. Director Nielsen asked if the Planning Commission wants him to take the information from the vision statement and create bulleted list of guiding principles and present that at the public hearing. Chair Geng asked if it would be sufficient to just provide an explanation of why the Planning Commission did the Study. Director Nielsen stated he thought the introduction in the Study report does that. 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 7. OLD BUSINESS None. 8. NEW BUSINESS Chair Geng stated he received a request from the person who is resuming the job of transcribing the Planning Commission meeting minutes to note who makes motions. He noted that at least for the foreseeable future she will transcribe the minutes from a recording. He recommended the Commissioners try to limit side conversations when another person is talking. He asked them to speak into their microphones when making a point and then turn it off if they want to make a side comment. 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there are two public hearings slated for the November 15, 2011, Planning Commission meeting. One is the continuation of the front yard setback variance for Don and Kiki Gloude. The other is to consider a Comprehensive (Comp) Plan amendment that would incorporate the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study (the Study) into the Appendix Chapter of the Plan. Best practices for the sustainability program will be reviewed. The text amendment to the Therapeutic Message Licensing Ordinance will be reviewed. There will be a discussion about the capacity on water towers for cellular antennas. the right-of- Commissioner Hasek asked Director Nielsen to send the Commissioners what the width of way for Fatima Place is. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 1, 2011 Page 15 of 15 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Woodruff reported on matters considered and actions taken at the October 24, 2011, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted a Planning Commissioner was not present at the meeting. • SLUC No report was given. • Other Chair Geng noted he read in a recent local newspaper article that Shorewood was one of two cities that have already met the 2015 recycling goals. The City of Minnetonka Beach was the other city. He thanked Staff and the Council for driving that effort. Administrator Heck stated he thought the City’s move to single-sort recycling helped with increasing the amount of recyclable material collected. 11. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 1, 2011, at 9:46 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder